![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteIt was 'only' Radio 2 listeners and then only 20,000 of them voting. Don't worry - it wasn't a true reflection of the population at large and phone-in polls are notoriously unvalid anyway. Who did you want to win?Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
How ridiculous!
They aren't obviously better than the Bay City Rollers, never mind the Beatles.
I blame it on mobile phones - they are scrambling people's brains, obviously.
It was 'only' Radio 2 listeners and then only 20,000 of them voting. Don't worry - it wasn't a true reflection of the population at large and phone-in polls are notoriously unvalid anyway. Who did you want to win?
Aye - shocking, isn't it? It's 2007, and still people dare disagree with you... Haven't they learned by now?
I agree there are lots of candidates for "best", I couldnt think of one winner to be honest. Look on the bright side though, they "trounced" Take That, quite rightly. How disturbed would we be if boy bands and tv reality show contestants were in the running
Speak for yerself, smurfy. I'm looking forward to finding out if H will go into the Celeb Big Brother House tonight....How disturbed would we be if boy bands and tv reality show contestants were in the running
You'd think, wouldn't you?Aye - shocking, isn't it? It's 2007, and still people dare disagree with you... Haven't they learned by now?
I don't really care who wins - I think these things are fairly unimportant. I just don't find it easy to learn that people think Queen were a 'greater' band than the Beatles. I've just noticed, however, that I picked a bad link - most of the news reports were headlined 'Queen better than Beatles', but the Beeb went for 'Queen top British band'. I'll pay more attention next time...
Yeah, god forbid if a boy band such as The Beatles for example were in the running!How disturbed would we be if boy bands and tv reality show contestants were in the running
oh dear. If you consider the Beatles a "boy band" I am very worried about youYeah, god forbid if a boy band such as The Beatles for example were in the running!
Well what else were they if not the first boy band?oh dear. If you consider the Beatles a "boy band" I am very worried about you
A "proper" band?
It's, at least I thought it was, common knowledge that "boy band" is a modern term for a manufactured, mostly talentless, band, to quote wikipedia "Although they are referred to as "bands", they rarely play instruments". Have you been under a rock ?
Nah, as they actually wrote and performed their own songs and started the band themselves.
If I remember rightly The Monkees were the first boy band.
Yes, surely the defining (pop-musical) difference between the (early) 1960s and the 1990s is that in the earlier decade, bands would aggregate out of friendship and common musical interests, gig together, write music, gig some more, borrow a transit and go to London (or Hamburg) and gig some more, try and get a record deal, and go from there.A "proper" band?
It's, at least I thought it was, common knowledge that "boy band" is a modern term for a manufactured, mostly talentless, band, to quote wikipedia "Although they are referred to as "bands", they rarely play instruments". Have you been under a rock ?
In the 1990s, 'impresarios' put adverts in Variety, dozens of people went along to the auditions and the impresario cobbled together a bunch of good looking people who didn't sing atrociously, bought some songs and sold the package to an A&R person. These were 'boy' or 'girl' bands. This didn't happen in the (early) 1960s.
The word 'early' is necessitated by the existence of the Monkees. Not only were they 'manufactured', but it was a direct attempt to 'cash in' on the appeal of the Beatles after they gave up touring. Mike Nesmith could play an instrument (went on to have a long career) but I don't think any of the others really could. In the 1970s we had Boney M, the Rubettes, other manufactured bands.
The Beatles were astonishingly ahead of their time (listen to Paul's bass playing on With a little help from my friends, or the use of sampling and sound effects on John's side of Abbey Road) but a boy band? Nah.
Wikipedia! Well that proves it, then...
BTW, to also quote from the same article...
A "proper" band?
It's, at least I thought it was, common knowledge that "boy band" is a modern term for a manufactured, mostly talentless, band, to quote wikipedia "Although they are referred to as "bands", they rarely play instruments". Have you been under a rock ?Well only being a youngster, I wasn't there so that's why you guys know more about it than I.
So I bow to your superior knowledge of ancient pop bands
That'll be why I'm five years younger than you then GavWell only being a youngster, I wasn't there so that's why you guys know more about it than I.
Don't know if it's a good thingSo I bow to your superior knowledge of ancient pop bands
If you have ever sat through one of those top 100 tracks of all time evenings on a music channel (whether voted by the public or industry) you will know that Bohemian Rhapsody usually places in the top 2.... I think it therefore stands to reason that the band that made one of the world's consistently most popular tracks is named as the best band - or am I missing something?
Yup. 100% fact. ask DavidJamesWikipedia! Well that proves it, then...
Now we don't let contrary evidence get in the way of factsBTW, to also quote from the same article...
yes you are. I dont know what it is though.
The Monkees were great, I don't care if they were manufactured or not.The monkees are a different matter but in their defence Davey Jones could play tamborine Im sure, and Mickey Dolenz used to play with drumsticks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks